HomeMy WebLinkAboutIowa ecocity pilot summary report final dec 22
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
i
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
SUMMARY
With the support of the Urban Sustainability Directors’ Network (USDN) Sustainable Consumption Grant, the
ecoCity Footprint Tool (eF Tool) was pilot tested with Iowa City. The objectives of the Sustainable Consumption
Grant project were to:
Assess the eF Tool’s suitability for use in a US city
Identify potential modifications to increase the Tool’s utility in a US context
Create a Consumption Based Emission Inventory and Ecological Footprint Assessment for Iowa City
This Summary Report presents the results of Iowa’s Consumption Based Emission Inventory and Ecological
Footprint, as created by the ecoCity Footprint Tool. It also provides an overview of the data collection
methodology and identifies opportunities, challenges and limitations specific to Iowa City.
Background
The ecoCity Footprint Tool enables a community to evaluate its ecological footprint, ‘territorial’ greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, and consumption-based GHG emissions. These inventories provide critical data to inform
sustainable-consumption and climate mitigation efforts. Since the late ‘90s, governments have typically created
GHG emissions inventories using an in-boundary or territorial approach, which identifies emissions from sources
within the particular region. However, this form of inventory does not provide a complete picture of a
community’s impact on global climate change. It misses the climate impacts associated with the many goods a
community consumes, because many of these goods are produced in other regions, often on other continents.
Although climate change is arguably the most pressing environmental issue we are currently facing, we are also
bumping up against many other planetary boundaries. Due to unsustainable levels of consumption, global society
today is demanding more in a year through consumption of energy and resources than nature can provide, and
polluting more than nature can assimilate. The ecoCity Footprint Tool has the capacity to arm a community with
the information it needs to act on global climate change and ecological overshoot.
Results
This report presents Iowa City’s ecological footprint and consumption based emission
inventory results for 2015.
Ecological Footprint Assessment
The ecological footprint is measured in global hectares (gha) per capita, where a global
hectare is a biologically productive hectare with globally averaged productivity for a given
year. It is an estimate of how much biologically productive land and water area an individual
or population needs to produce all the resources it consumes and to absorb the wastes it
generates. Based on current global population and biological productivity levels, an average
of 1.7 global hectares is available for each person on the planet.
Results show that Iowa City’s per capita footprint is 6.7 gha/person.1 This means Iowa City
residents are consuming four times more of the earth’s resources than what is currently
available. Put another way, this means that approximately 4 earths would be required to
support the global population if everyone had lifestyles comparable to an Iowa City resident.
1 This per capita footprint includes an estimate of national and provincial services.
# Planets
Required by
Iowa City
ii
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
Territorial GHG Emission Inventory and Consumption Based Emission Inventory
The Consumption Based Emissions Inventory (CBEI) presents the total GHG emissions resulting from
consumption of goods and services within a region, regardless of where those goods and services are produced.
This form of inventory is generated using the data typically collected for a territorial inventory, including the
energy used by buildings and transportation and the emissions associated with solid waste management; in
addition to an evaluation of the emissions that result from the production and transport of all goods consumed
within the region, as informed by life cycle assessment data. Total consumption-based emissions for Iowa City
were 1,182 ktCO2e in 2015, approximately 200 ktCO2e more than the territorial emissions (see Figure 1). CBEI
emissions for communities with low levels of industry within their borders are typically half that of their territorial
emissions, since much of the goods consumed in a community are imported. This is not the case for Iowa City,
however since the city is home to a few large manufacturing companies.
Figure 1: Comparison of Iowa City’s 2015 Consumption Based and Territorial GHG Emissions
Highlights
For the CBEI, the largest impact category is buildings (52%) followed by consumables and waste (23%);
similarly, for the EF, the largest impact category is buildings (37%), followed by consumables and waste
(28%). Food is the impact area in which these results vary most significantly. Food is only 10% of the total
for the CBEI, but 25% of the EF; the primary driver for this difference is the land intensity of food
production.
FOOD
Only a small proportion of the impact of food is associated with its transportation, whereas 98% is
associated with the amount of land and energy used for agricultural production. Nearly three quarters
of food impacts result from production of animal proteins, in particular red meat and dairy products.
Three-quarters of both the ecological footprint (EF) and the CBEI associated with food result from
production of animal proteins, including dairy. The main difference between the EF and the CBEI results
is that dairy yields a greater GHG impact due to the energy intensity of its production, and meat yields a
greater EF impact due to its intensity in land use demands.
Results demonstrate that the largest priority for reducing Iowa City’s food footprint is to target
meat and dairy consumption, both in terms of reducing overall consumption levels and in terms
of reducing the land and energy demands associated with their production.
85%
13%
2%
Stationary Energy 11.2
tCO2e/ca
Transportation 1.7
tCO2e/ca
Waste 0.3 tCO2e/ca
Total tCO2e:970,000
Total tCO2e/ca:13.2
10%
52%
23%
15%
0%Food 1.5 tCO2e/ca
Buildings 8.4 tCO2e/ca
Consumables & Waste 3.7
tCO2e/ca
Total tCO2e/ca:16.1
Total tCO2e:1,182,000
Territorial GHG Emissions, 2015 Consumption Based GHG Emissions, 2015
iii
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
BUILDINGS
Operating energy of buildings dominates impacts for both the EF and the CBEI.
The near-term priority should be to improve the efficiency of buildings and accelerate action to
transition to 100% renewable energy, with a longer-term objective of ensuring footprint impacts
are considered in decisions about building materials.
CONSUMABLES
The footprint of consumables and waste is dominated by upstream impacts, namely the energy and
materials that go into producing the goods that are consumed in the city. Textiles and paper are a
significant component of the consumables and waste footprint.
The largest impact categories for consumables with respect to the EF are paper (40%), and wood waste,
textiles, rubber (33%); whereas for the CBEI the largest impact categories for consumables are wood
waste, textiles, rubber (37%), and plastics (36%). These results are explained by the larger land footprint
associated with production of paper, and the higher fuel intensity associated with plastic.
Results indicate the necessity to prioritize reduction in overall consumption, instead of focusing
on end of stream waste management. Emphasis should be placed on priority material types, in
particular plastic, paper and textiles.
TRANSPORTATION
Sixty two percent of Iowa City’s transportation footprint is a result of fuel consumption for private
vehicles, and adding the embodied energy of vehicles, private vehicle transportation represents more
than 80% of the transportation footprint. Similar to the EF, 90% of the consumption-based emissions for
transportation are associated with private vehicle travel.
A near term priority is to continue to support a mode-shift away from private vehicle travel,
continue to electrify the vehicle fleet (particularly transit); and to reduce the number of
vehicles on the road by promoting active transportation, transit, and car-sharing. These
initiatives can also reduce the embodied energy for transportation by reducing the overall
number of vehicles on the road. The long-term priority should be to promote compact
communities that are designed for active transportation and transit.
The Sustainability Gap
To achieve ‘One Planet Living’ Iowa City’s ecological footprint would need to reduce from 6.7 gha per capita to
at least 1.7 gha per capita. This represents a sustainability gap of 70%. From a climate perspective, in order to
achieve the target of maintaining global temperatures below a 2 degree Celsius in warming, GHGs must be
reduced to 2 tCO2e per capita. Given Iowa City’s current consumption based GHG per capita emissions of 16.1
tCO2e, GHG emissions would need to be reduced by 88%; and based on the territorial GHG emissions of 13.2
tCO2e per capita, they would need to be reduced by 85%.
This report presents a proposed One Planet Scenario, as an example of how Iowa City could reduce its total
ecological footprint to 1.7 gha per capita. It also presents a set of example policy and planning interventions to
help close this sustainability gap.
iv
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
Acknowledgements
This report has been prepared by Cora Hallsworth (Principal, Cora Hallsworth Consulting-CHC) and Dr. Jennie
Moore (Associate Dean, School of Construction and the Built Environment, BCIT); with contributions and
research provided by Daniel Southwick, University of Iowa, Ryan Mackie (CHC), and editing provided by
Paramdeep Nahal, BCIT.
The authors would like to thank and acknowledge our project advisors and the many individuals who contributed
time to this project. A special thank you to the City of Iowa City staff lead for this project: Brenda Nations,
Sustainability Coordinator, and to our project advisors: Babe O’Sullivan (USDN) and Allison Ashcroft (Network
Coordinator, CUSP), and the many staff members at Iowa City whom contributed data and participated in
workshops.
1
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ....................................................................... i
Background ...................................................................... i
Results ............................................................................. i
Ecological Footprint Assessment i
GHG Emission Inventories ii
Highlights ii
The Sustainability Gap iii
Acknowledgements ........................................................ iv
List of Figures .................................................................. 3
Acronyms ........................................................................ 4
Definition of Terms ......................................................... 4
CONTEXT ......................................................................... 5
ECOCITY FOOTPRINT TOOL OVERVIEW .......................... 6
PILOT PROJECT OVERVIEW ............................................. 8
PILOTING IN IOWA CITY .................................................. 8
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY .... 11
RESULTS ........................................................................ 14
Ecological Footprint Assessment .................................. 14
Food Footprint 15
Buildings Footprint 16
Consumables and Waste Footprint 17
Transportation Footprint 18
Territorial GHG Emission Inventory .............................. 18
Consumption Based Emission Inventory ...................... 19
CBEI of Food 20
CBEI of Buildings 20
CBEI of Consumables 21
CBEI of Transportation 22
2
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
THE SUSTAINABILITY GAP ............................................. 22
ONE PLANET SCENARIO ................................................ 23
POLICY RESPONSES AND INTERVENTIONS ................... 25
NEXT STEPS ................................................................... 28
APPENDIX A: LCA DATA FOR CONSUMABLES AND WASTE 29
APPENDIX B: DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY ....... 30
3
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Summary of Ecological Footprint by Activity, 2015 (excluding national and provincial services) .... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Figure 2: Comparison of Iowa City’s 2015 Consumption Based and Territorial GHG Emissions ............................. ii
Figure 3: Sustainability Gap, 2015 (including national and state services) ............... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Figure 4: Iowa City’s Current Ecological Footprint Compared to a One Planet ScenarioError! Bookmark not
defined.
Figure 1 Complimentary GHG Emission Inventory Approaches ...............................................................................6
Figure 2 Two methods for calculating the Ecological Footprint ...............................................................................7
Figure 3 ecoCity Footprint Tool Outputs ..................................................................................................................7
Figure 4: Data Inputs ............................................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 8: Summary of Ecological Footprint by Activity, 2015 (excluding national and state services) ................. 15
Figure 9: Food Footprint Summary, 2015.............................................................................................................. 15
Figure 10: Food Footprint by Food Type, 2015 ..................................................................................................... 16
Figure 11: Buildings Footprint Detailed, 2015 ....................................................................................................... 16
Figure 12: Consumables and Waste Footprint, 2015 ............................................................................................ 17
Figure 13: Consumables Footprint by Type, 2015 ................................................................................................. 18
Figure 14: Transportation Footprint in Detail, 2015 ............................................................................................. 18
Figure 15: Territorial GHG Emissions Inventory (GPC Basic Inventory) ................................................................ 19
Figure 16: Summary of GHG Emissions from Consumption, 2015 ........................................................................ 20
Figure 17: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory of Food, 2015 ........................................................................... 20
Figure 18: GHG Emissions Inventory of Buildings, 2015........................................................................................ 21
Figure 19: GHG Emissions Inventory of Consumables, 2015 ................................................................................. 21
Figure 20: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory of Transportation, 2015 ........................................................... 22
Figure 21: Sustainability Gap, 2015 (including national and state services) ......................................................... 22
Figure 20: Iowa City’s Current Ecological Footprint Compared to a One Planet Scenario .................................... 24
4
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
Acronyms
AFOLU Agricultural, Forest, and other Commercial Land Uses
BCIT British Columbia Institute of Technology
CBEI Consumption Based Emission Inventory
CLP Climate Leadership Plan
CMA Census Metropolitan Area
CRD Capital Regional District
EF Ecological Footprint
eF Tool ecoCity Footprint Tool
gha Global Hectares
gha/ca Global Hectares per Capita (person)
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GPC Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories
ICI Industrial Commercial and Institutional (sectors)
IPPU Industrial Products and Pollutants
tCO2e Metric Tonnes Carbon Dioxide
USDN Urban Sustainability Directors Network
VKT Vehicle Kilometers Traveled
Definition of Terms
BASIC and BASIC+ Reporting levels in the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission
Inventories (GPC).
Built Area For the eF Tool, Built Area is the total municipal boundary excluding natural areas, where a
natural area is a non-serviced area. For example, a treed park would be excluded, but
agricultural land is included. In the eF Tool, the Built Area for the transportation sector is
reported separately.
CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) expresses the impact of each different greenhouse gas in
terms of the amount of CO2 (carbon dioxide) that would create the same amount of warming.
This enables reporting total greenhouse gas emissions in one measurement.
Embodied Energy The energy used in creating and delivering a particular material (e.g., consumable good or
infrastructure), including the energy used for extraction of raw materials, manufacturing and
transportation of the end product.
Embodied Materials Materials that are utilized in the manufacture of a consumable product or infrastructure, but
that do not end up in the finished product. Examples are manufacturing wastage and
temporary features used during manufacture.
Urban Metabolism A study of the flow of energy and materials through the urban system.
Operating Energy The energy used in the function of a product, building, vehicle, etc.
Scope 1-3 GHG emissions that are generated in-boundary (Scope 1), from grid supplied energy
(Scope 2), and generated out-of-boundary (Scope 3).
5
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
CONTEXT
Scientists are suggesting that we
have entered the era of the
Anthropocene; an era in which
humanity is the greatest force
shaping earth’s terrestrial systems.
Currently, 50% of net primary
production is in service of the human
population and 80% of ecosystems
are influenced by humans.i As a
result, we are bumping up against
important planetary boundaries,ii
and are in a state of “ecological
overshoot.”iii
Climate change is one of these
critical areas of overshoot. Recently,
Nation States from around the
world, including Canada, ratified the
Paris Agreement, committing to
holding global temperature increase
to below 2 degrees Celsius. The
signatories are aiming to go beyond
this commitment by staying below
1.5 degrees Celsius of warming,
which scientists now suggest is the
boundary threshold for avoiding the
most negative and severe climate
change impacts of a changing
climate.
Cities account for only 3% of global
land use, but they are responsible
for the majority of global resource
consumption. iv It is not the cities
that are the problem, but the energy
and resource intensity of our urban
lifestyles that require vast land
areas outside of the city to support
it. The discrepancy between the
small amount of land occupied by
cities and the vast amount of land
required to resource urban lifestyles
is at the heart of the urban
sustainability challenge.
The Ecological Footprint (EF) and
the Consumption Based Emission
Inventory (CBEI) can help
communities and governments
tackle one of the root causes of
global ecological overshoot and
climate change: individual and
collective consumption choices and
habits.
What is an Ecological
Footprint?
The ecological footprint helps us
understand how consumption affects
ecological thresholds in terms of our
demand on nature’s services and the
available ecologically productive land
and sea area. It is an estimate of how
much biologically productive land
and water area an individual or
population needs to produce all the
resources it consumes and to absorb
the waste it generates. It is
measured in global hectares (gha)
per capita, where a global hectare is
a biologically productive hectare
with globally averaged productivity
for a given year.
What is a Consumption-Based
Emissions Inventory?
The consumption approach includes
the emissions released to produce
goods and services consumed within
a region, regardless of where they
were originally produced. That is, it
estimates global emissions resulting
from local consumption habits.
Typical emissions inventories include
only emissions from sources within a
given region’s borders; however,
with the globalization and
integration of our economy, a
significant amount of the emissions
associated with the production,
disposal, and transport of a region’s
goods occur in other regions. CBEI
results can demonstrate the scale to
which we are off-loading our
consumption-related emissions on to
other jurisdictions. This will help
encourage strategies that maximize
global, and not just local, emission
reductions. This form of inventory is
of growing interest to governments
that are keen to broaden and deepen
their sustainability and climate-
action efforts.
Ecological overshoot is
measured using ecological
footprint analysis, which
assesses humanity’s total
demand on nature’s services
over a one-year period
compared to the capability of
biologically productive land and
sea areas to meet that demand.
Global society today is
demanding more in a year
through consumption of energy
and resources than nature can
provide, and polluting more
than nature can assimilate.
Simply stated, it would take 1.5
Earths to sustainably provide
the ecological services we
currently use.
6
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
ECOCITY FOOTPRINT TOOL OVERVIEW
Dr. Jennie Moore, Associate Dean at the British Columbia Institute of Technology
(BCIT), created the ecoCity Footprint Tool (eF Tool) as part of her PhD under the
supervision of Dr. William Rees, founder of the ecological footprint concept. The
goal in creating the eF Tool was to
support policy-related decision-
making aimed at reversing global
ecological overshoot, namely by
creating a community-scale ecological
footprint using locally sourced data. A
prototype of this eF Tool was used by
the City of Vancouver. The outputs
from the Tool are highly valued by the
City and are informing the strategies,
actions, and monitoring methods for
their “Greenest City 2020 Action
Plan”.
The Tool was originally conceived for ecological footprint utility, but it also
generates an urban metabolism, a traditional ‘territorial’ greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission inventory, and a consumption-based emissions inventory. These
inventories provide critical data to inform sustainable-consumption and climate
mitigation efforts.
Figure 2 Complementary GHG Emission Inventory Approaches
How Does the eF Tool Work?
Many existing ecological footprint and consumption-based greenhouse gas
(GHG) inventory tools use the ‘compound method’ (a top-down approach that
uses national and/or econometric data). But, the eF Tool uses the ‘component
method’, which emphasizes the use of community-based data, and aligns with
traditional spheres of planning at the local government level (see Figure 3,
below). Real consumption data, collected through an urban metabolism study,
What is an Urban Metabolism?
The urban metabolism traces the
flow of energy and materials
through the urban system, and
yields the data to inform the
footprint and consumption
inventory. The urban metabolism
can be depicted visually using a
SANKEY diagram (see below).
What is a Territorial GHG
Emissions Inventory?
Since the late 90’s governments
have typically created greenhouse
gas emissions inventories using an
in-boundary or territorial approach,
which identifies emissions from
sources within the particular region,
plus electricity.
.
7
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
provides the utility needed to directly link policy intervention to emission outputs at the local government scale.
This provides a clear and transparent understanding of how city functions, across all sectors and service areas,
affect the footprint. It also enables scenario analyses to forecast which policy interventions and changes could
enable reductions in the city’s energy and material flows, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and ecological
footprint.
Figure 3 Two methods for calculating the Ecological Footprint
ecoCity Footprint Tool Application
Exploring consumption-based inventories and ecological footprints is a way for governments to broaden and
deepen their sustainability and climate-action efforts. In particular, they provide a more robust understanding
of emission sources and ecological impacts, and they can directly inform sustainable-consumption efforts.
The eF Tool also has the potential to help streamline data collection and reporting due to its capacity to create
multiple outputs: the consumption-based inventory, the territorial inventory, as well as the ecological footprint.
Figure 4 ecoCity Footprint Tool Outputs
8
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
PILOT PROJECT OVERVIEW
With the support of the Urban Sustainability Directors’ Network (USDN) Sustainable Consumption Grant, the eF
Tool was pilot tested with Iowa City. The objectives of the Sustainable Consumption Grant project were to:
Assess the eF Tool’s suitability for use in a US city
Identify potential modifications to increase the Tool’s utility in a US context
Create a Consumption Based Emission Inventory and Ecological Footprint Assessment for Iowa City
This project ran in parallel with a USDN Innovation Fund pilot project aimed at refining the Tool to align with new
international GHG reporting protocols; scoping out an on-line version of the Tool; creation of user guidance and
testing with four additional USDN members (City of Victoria, City of Vancouver, City of North Vancouver, and
District of Saanich). Both projects were led by BCIT with the support of a project manager and a team of advisors.
This Summary Report presents the results of Iowa City’s Consumption Based Emission Inventory and Ecological
Footprint, as created by the ecoCity Footprint Tool. It also provides an overview of the data collection
methodology and identifies opportunities, challenges and limitations specific to Iowa City.
Two companion reports provide supplementary information:
The Sustainable Consumption Grant Final Report summarizes the lessons learned in testing the ecoCity
Footprint Tool in a US context, particularly an assessment of the Tool’s suitability for use in a US city. A
summary of recommended refinements to the Tool is also presented.
The Innovation Fund Pilot Project Final Report (to be submitted in January 2018) will present a
complete set of lessons learned through piloting with all five communities.
PILOTING IN IOWA CITY
Iowa City participated in this pilot project because of its potential to inform and contribute to climate and
sustainability planning efforts. The City is currently creating an updated Community-wide Climate Action and
Adaptation Plan, and it is hoped that information gleaned from using the ecoCity Footprint Tool can help inform
this planning process. Ecological Footprint and Consumption Based Emissions Inventory results can also inform
a broader set of planning initiatives at the City; including, for example: neighborhood planning, local food
strategy planning, sustainable transportation planning, and solid waste management planning. The resulting data
and knowledge could also provide framing for communications to residents and business about sustainability
and climate action issues.
Iowa City has made substantive climate action commitments over the last decade, starting in 2007 with the
signing of the US Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement. In 2008, the City joined the Cities for Climate Protection
Campaign and began annually reporting their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Most recently, in 2016, the city
joined the Compact of Mayors, now the Covenant of Mayors, and completed their first GHG inventory compliant
with the Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories (GPC) for the 2015 reporting
year.
9
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
Municipal Context
Iowa City is located in the state of Iowa, in northern central USA, and had a population of over 73,000 in 2015.
The city has a total area of 25 square miles (65 km),2 97% of which is farmland.3 A significant proportion of Iowa
City’s population attend the University of Iowa (UI), located in Iowa City. The smaller Kirkwood Community
College is also located in Iowa City. Current enrolment at UI is 30,0004 and many of these students are considered
to be Iowa City residents as they reside in Iowa City for more than six months of the year.
There are several small towns that flank Iowa City such as Coralville and North Liberty. The University of Iowa
employs over 27,000 people in the region either directly or in its hospital and clinics. Much of the remaining
population is employed by other medical services, local government and academic services independent from
UI. Several large engineering and manufacturing plants also operate in the city including Proctor & Gamble, Oral-
B, International Automotive Components, Lear, Alpla, and Moore North America.5
Both heating and cooling loads for buildings are significant in this climate given that winters are relatively cold
(averaging lows of 15oF) and summers are hot and humid (averaging highs of 86oF).6 The majority of electricity is
supplied by MidAmerican Energy Company and by a power plant on the UI campus. MidAmerican is the largest
wind energy producer in the USA and as of 2011, 30% of its power generation comes from renewables. The UI
power plant uses both coal and biomass and plans to have 40% of campus energy come from renewable energy
sources by 2020. By 2025, their goal is to be 100% coal-free.7
Both the City and UI have committed to reducing energy use through the construction of Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) certified buildings, converting to Light-emitting Diode (LED) lighting and other
conservation retrofits. As of 2011, both the city and UI list close to 10 completed LEED projects. UI also runs an
Energy Control Center in which energy engineers can monitor and analyze the energy use of all buildings on
campus. With this initiative, conservation efforts can be tracked in real time to analyze effectiveness.8
Municipal solid waste production per capita for Iowa City is 767 kg (2011). This is slightly higher than the US
average of 744 kg and well above most other regions in the world. For example, the European Union (EU) average
is 476 kg (2015)9 and the world average is 234 kg (2013).10 UI has a goal to reach a 60% waste diversion rate by
2020.11There are a number of recycling programs in Iowa City including curbside pickup which is used regularly
by 65% of residents and a composting program for yard waste and food scraps; however, diversion rates are still
relatively low. It is estimated that 75% (2011) of the waste entering the landfill is recyclable. Methane gas from
2 US Census Bureau, 2010 Census. (n.d.). QuickFacts. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/amescityiowa,US/IPE120216
3 City of Iowa City. (2013). Iowa City Sustainability Assessment 2013. Retrieved from
https://www.icgov.org/services/sustainability
4 City of Iowa City. (2013).
5 City of Iowa City. (2013).
6 National Climatic Data Center. (n.d.). Climate of Iowa. Retrieved from
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/dvn/downloads/Clim_IA_01.pdf
7 City of Iowa City. (2013).
8 City of Iowa City. (2013). Iowa City Sustainability Assessment 2013. Retrieved from
https://www.icgov.org/services/sustainability
9 Eurostat. (n.d.). Municipal Waste Statistics extracted July 2017. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Municipal_waste_statistics
10 World Economic Forum. (Aug 2015). Which countries produce the most waste?. Retrieved from
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/08/which-countries-produce-the-most-waste/
11 City of Iowa City. (2013).
10
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
the landfill and the wastewater treatment plant is captured and a portion of the wastewater methane is utilized,
effectively reducing emissions.
Iowa City has a walk score of 43; this ranking means that most errands require a car.12 With 77 km (48 miles) of
paved bike trails, the city is a Silver Level Bicycle Friendly Community. The transit service ridership is close to 2
million (2011) connecting the UI campus and neighboring communities. UI runs a free bus service on campus
that services over 4 million riders annually (2011) and a van service used by about 700 students to commute to
the campus. Efforts by the city to shift to more active transportation between 2007 to 2011 contributed to a 10%
reduction in automobile use, a 67% increase in public transportation use, a 52% increase in bicycling, and a 9%
increase in walking. In 2011, UI and the city increased the biodiesel content used in their bus fleets to 20% and
10% respectively. The UI vehicle fleet is 52% E-85, hybrid, and electric vehicles. The annual vehicle kilometers
traveled per capita in Iowa City is 7,564 (4,700 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita), less than half of the state
and country average.13
UI received a STARS Gold Rating in 2013 for its sustainability efforts and in 2015, Iowa City received a 4-star rating
from the STAR Community Rating System. Over the last decade, Iowa City has seen a steady decline of per capita
GHG emissions from 21 tCO2e (2008) to 18 tCO2e (2013) and inventory results for the 2015 reporting year also
suggest a downward trend in total emissions.14
12Walkscore. Living in Iowa City. Retrieved from: https://www.walkscore.com/IA/Iowa_City
13 City of Iowa City. (2013).
14 City of Iowa City. (2013). Iowa City Sustainability Assessment 2013. Retrieved from
https://www.icgov.org/services/sustainability
11
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The ecoCity Footprint Tool is aligned with the typical spheres (or categories) of municipal planning. As such, data
is collected on the total inputs, in terms of materials, embodied energy, operational energy and built area for
each of these categories (see Figure 5). Each of these inputs are evaluated sectorally – that is by residential,
institution, commercial and industrial sectors. The eF Tool employs a bottom-up approach, prioritizing the use
of community- and regional-scale data sources. However, in cases where local data is not available, assumptions
or proxies are utilized.
Study Year
A study year of 2015 was chosen to align with the most recently completed GHG inventory.
Figure 5: Data Inputs15
Key Assumptions and Limitations
An overview of the data inputs required to generate the ecological footprint, CBEI and territorial GHG inventory,
and key assumptions and limitations are presented in the table, below. A detailed overview of the methodology,
data sources, and challenges and opportunities are presented in Appendix A.
15 (I)CI refers to light industrial, commercial and institutional sectors.
Categories:
Food/Buildings/
Consumables & Waste /
Transportation / Water
Materials
Residential (I)CI
Embodied
Energy
Residential (I)CI
Operating
Energy
Residential (I)CI
Built Area
Residential (I)CI
12
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
Table 1: Key Assumptions and Limitations
CATEGORY INPUTS EF CBEI
TERRITORIAL
GHG
INVENTORY
KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
Food
Food available is measured as a proxy for food
consumption and import distances are used to
estimate food-kilometers traveled. Energy
associated with the production and
transportation of imported food is then
estimated.
Embodied energy and
materials associated with
food production (energy and
materials used to produce
and transport food)
Food consumption and ‘food miles’ statistics were not
available at the local level; therefore national averages
were used as a proxy. An option to make this data more
locally relevant would be to conduct a food survey in the
future.
Land used to produce food
Buildings and Stationary Energy
The embodied materials, embodied energy,
operating energy, and the built area associated
with residential, industrial and commercial
buildings are evaluated to establish a material-
flow analysis, assess the direct and embodied
carbon, and evaluate the ecological footprint of
these buildings.
Operating energy used by
buildings and related
infrastructure
The study team was unable to obtain tonnage of
materials used in buildings. Archetype information
already contained within Dr. Moore’s ecoCity Footprint
Tool was used as a proxy in the absence of local data. Embodied energy and
embodied materials of
buildings
Built area associated with
buildings
Consumables and Waste
Data is collected on the:
quantity of solid and liquid waste generated
by sector (residential, industrial, commercial
and institutional) and by material type;
method in which materials are managed
(i.e., landfilled, incinerated, recycled,
composted);
energy consumption and emissions
associated with waste management
facilities, and transportation of waste;
material composition and built area associated
with waste management facilities.
Operating energy used in
waste management facilities
and hauling waste
The landfill serves a regional community, therefore waste
generation rates were pro-rated based on population
served by the landfill. This method does not reflect the
unique profile of Iowa City residents.
Direct emissions from waste
facilities
Embodied energy and
materials associated with
consumables (as inferred by
waste stream)
Built area associated with
waste management
13
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
CATEGORY INPUTS EF CBEI
TERRITORIAL
GHG
INVENTORY
KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
Transportation
Evaluates the embodied materials and
embodied energy of physical transportation
infrastructure and vehicles, operating energy
(fuel consumed by vehicles), and physical built
area occupied by transportation infrastructure.
Data is collected for private and commercial
vehicles; transit; aviation travel; marine travel
and off road vehicle use.
Operating energy associated
with to transportation (fuel
use for private and
commercial vehicles;
aviation; marine vessels and
off-road vehicles)
State average annual miles driven per capita were used
since city-wide estimates did not account for travel out of
city limits. State averages likely result in an over-
estimate of VMTs due to the high percentage of biking
and walking commutes that take place in Iowa City
compared to the rest of the State.
National average air travel estimates were used in the
absence of local data.
Embodied energy and
embodied materials
associated with personal
vehicles and transportation
infrastructure
Built area associated with
waste management
Water
Evaluates the embodied materials, embodied
energy, operating energy, and built area
impacts of the water distribution and
purification system relied on by the municipality.
Operating energy used in
treating and conveying water n/a
Embodied energy and
embodied materials
associated with water
infrastructure
Built area associated with
water management
14
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
RESULTS
The following presents the results of the assessment of Iowa City’s: (1) Ecological Footprint (EF), (2) Consumption
Based Emission Inventory (CBEI), and (3) ‘Territorial/GPC GHG emission inventory; as evaluated by the ecoCity
Footprint Tool.
It is important to contextualize results with the knowledge that Iowa City’s per capita footprint and GHG
emissions are increased since the city is home to the University of Iowa, and since the city is home to companies
that provide employment for residents in surrounding communities. Students and employees that travel into
Iowa City from surrounding communities generate waste and use energy while they are in the City. As a result,
the waste generation and energy-use associated with the institutional and commercial sectors in Iowa City is
inflated.
Ecological Footprint Assessment
The ecological footprint is measured in global hectares (gha). A global hectare represents the
average of all biological productive land and aquatic area on earth for a given year. An ecological
footprint is an estimate of how much biologically productive land and water area an individual
or population needs to produce all the resources it consumes and to absorb the wastes it
generates. Based on current global population and biological productivity levels, an average of
1.7 global hectares is available for each person on the planet.
Iowa City’s total ecological footprint is 418,000 gha (about 1 million acres).16 This is an area 64
times bigger than the City’s municipal boundary. Iowa City’s current per capita footprint is 5.7
gha excluding the resource demands associated with national and state services such as the
military. If we were to add these national and state services, Iowa City’s per capita ecological
footprint increases by at least 18%, to 6.7 gha per person. This means Iowa City residents are
consuming 4 times more of the earth’s resources than what is currently available. Put another
way, this means that approximately 4 earths would be required to support the global population
if everyone had lifestyles comparable to an Iowa City resident.
If we look at the various components of Iowa City’s footprint, as shown in Figure 6, buildings
represent the largest impact (37%), followed by consumables and waste (28%), food (25%), and
transportation (10%).
16 Excluding national and state services.
# Planets
Required by
Iowa City
15
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
Figure 6: Summary of Ecological Footprint by Activity, 2015 (excluding national and state services)
Food Footprint
In considering the food footprint we see that only a small proportion of the impact is associated with transport
of the food, whereas 98% of the footprint is associated with the amount of land and energy that are utilized in
growing food (see Figure 7).
Figure 7: Food Footprint Summary, 2015
When we look at which types of food are having the largest impact on the footprint, nearly three quarters of the
footprint is a result of animal proteins, in particular red meat and dairy products (see Figure 8: Food Footprint
by Food Type, 2015).
25%
37%
28%
10%
0%
[Acres equivalent: 14.1 acres/capita; Total: 1 million acres]
Food 1.43 gha/ca
Buildings 2.12 gha/ca
Consumables & Waste 1.57 gha/ca
Transportation 0.57 gha/ca
Water 0.01 gha/ca
Total gha/ca:5.70
Total gha:418,000
60%13%
0%
25%
2%
[Acres equivalent: 259,000 acres]
Materials (Cropland) 63,072 gha
Materials (Pasture Land) 13,452 gha
Materials (Fishing Area) 79 gha
Embodied Energy (Production) 26,192 gha
Operating Energy (Food Miles) 2,020 gha
Total gha:105,000
16
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
Figure 8: Food Footprint by Food Type, 2015
These results demonstrate that the largest priority for reducing Iowa City’s food footprint is to target meat
and dairy consumption, both in terms of reducing overall consumption levels and in terms of reducing the land
and energy demands associated with their production.
Buildings Footprint
As shown in Figure 9, more than 90 percent of the ecological footprint of Iowa City buildings is a result of
operating energy. This is not to say that material choices for buildings are insignificant, but given that the impact
of these materials are amortized over the entire lifespan of the building, their overall impact compared to fuel
and electricity consumption becomes overshadowed.17 As the City transitions to lower impact energy sources to
operate our buildings, the impact of material choices will make up a greater percentage of the footprint. The
near-term priority should be to improve the efficiency of buildings, with a longer-term objective of ensuring
footprint impacts are considered in decisions about building materials over their lifecycle.
Figure 9: Buildings Footprint Detailed, 2015
17 There is an unresolved issue with the data for concrete resulting in under reporting of impacts of commercial/institutional
embodied energy on EF and CBEI.
7%
51%
4%
5%
5%
21%
7%
[Acres equivalent: 259,000 acres]
Fruits and Vegetables 7,156 gha
Fish, Meat, Eggs 53,058 gha
Grains 4,370 gha
Stimulants (coffee, tea, sugar, cocoa) 5,237 gha
Oils, Nuts, Legumes 5,400 gha
Dairy Products 21,642 gha
Beverages 7,953 gha
105,000Total gha:
1%
5%
0%
28%
64%
2%0%0%
[Acres equivalent: 383,000 acres]
Materials (Residential Woodframe only) 915 gha
Embodied Energy Residential 8,256 gha
Embodied Energy Commercial/Institutional 112 gha
Operating Energy Residential 43,198 gha
Operating Energy Commercial/Institutional 99,505 gha
Built Area Residential 2,677 gha
Built Area Commercial 323 gha
Built Area Institutional 454 gha
Total gha:155,000
17
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
Consumables and Waste Footprint
The footprint of consumables and waste is dominated by upstream impacts, namely the energy and materials
that go into producing the goods that are consumed in the city.18 As shown in Figure 10, these upstream impacts
– the embodied materials and embodied energy associated with the consumables – represent 96% of the
footprint. Embodied materials are those that are utilized in the manufacture of a consumable product or
infrastructure but do not end up in the finished product; and embodied energy is the energy used in creating and
delivering a particular material (e.g., consumable good or infrastructure). Results indicate the necessity to
prioritize reduction in overall consumption, instead of focusing on end of stream waste management.
Figure 10: Consumables and Waste Footprint, 2015
It is also instructional to evaluate which consumables are yielding the largest impact on the footprint in order to
develop targeted policy and communication measures. As shown in Figure 11, Iowa City’s footprint is dominated
by paper and “wood waste, textiles, & rubber.”19 Although textiles typically comprise a small portion of the waste
stream by weight, their embodied energy and material are very high. Table 1 in Appendix A provides a detailed
breakdown of footprint impacts by type (that is, by type of plastic, paper, etc.). Emphasis should be placed on
reducing consumption of priority materials, in particular paper and textiles.
18 Operating energy for waste management facilities was not available, as discussed in Appendix A: Methodology, but would
be negligible compared to the embodied energy and embodied materials impacts.
19 Total global hectares is lower in Figure 11 than it is in Figure 10 because Figure 11 only shows the LCA impacts of food,
and does not include the EF and GHG impacts associated with waste management (operating energy and direct emissions
from waste management).
4%
45%51%
0%0%
0%
0%
0%
[Acres equivalent: 383,000]
Materials Disposed 4,255 gha
Embodied Materials Disposed 51,571 gha
Embodied Energy of Materials Disposed 58,675 gha
Embodied Energy of Materials Recycled 512 gha
Solid Waste Operations 135 gha
Liquid Waste Operations 7 gha
Solid Waste Built Area 145 gha
Liquid Waste Built Area 0 gha
Total gha:115,000
18
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
Figure 11: Consumables Footprint by Type, 2015
Transportation Footprint
More than half of Iowa City’s transportation footprint is a result of fuel consumption for private vehicles, and if
we add in the embodied energy of vehicles, private vehicle transportation represents more than three-quarters
of the footprint. A near term priority is to continue to support a mode-shift away from private vehicle travel,
and to electrify the vehicle fleet (particularly transit) and reduce the number of vehicles on the road by
promoting active transportation, transit, and car-sharing. There are also opportunities to reduce the embodied
energy for transportation through car-sharing and transit. The long term priority should be promoting compact
communities that are designed for active transportation and transit.
Figure 12: Transportation Footprint in Detail, 2015
Territorial GHG Emission Inventory
Through enhancements as part of the pilot project, the eF Tool now provides a territorial GHG emission inventory
which is compliant with GPC reporting protocols. A comprehensive GPC inventory has already been prepared for
the City. For this report we therefore present only summary information on the territorial emission inventory,
40%
17%
33%
6%
0%
3%
1%
[Acres equivalent: 220,000]
Paper 35,379 gha
Plastic 15,262 gha
Wood Waste, Textiles, & Rubber 29,288 gha
Metals 5,380 gha
Glass 147 gha
Household Hygiene 3,019 gha
Other 440 gha
Total gha:89,000
0%
3%
17%
62%
4%
0%4%9%
1%
0%
[Acres equivalent: 104,000]
Embodied Energy Roads 1,142 gha
Embodied Energy Vehicles 7,145 gha
Operating Energy Private Vehicles 25,909 gha
Operating Energy Commercial Vehicles 1,688 gha
Operating Energy Public Transportation 257 gha
Operating Energy Air Travel 1,701 gha
Operating Energy Off Road 3,699 gha
Operating Energy Street Lights 266 gha
Total gha:42,000
19
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
for the purposes of comparison with the Consumption Based Emission Inventory. As shown in Figure 13, the total
territorial emissions for Iowa City are 970 ktCO2e,20 or 13.2 tC02e per capita.
Figure 13: Territorial GHG Emissions Inventory (GPC Basic Inventory)
Consumption Based Emission Inventory
As previously noted, the Consumption Based Emission Inventory (CBEI) presents the total GHG emissions
resulting from consumption of goods and services within a region, regardless of where those goods and services
are produced. This form of inventory is generated using the data typically collected for a territorial inventory,
including the energy used by buildings and transportation and the emissions associated with solid waste
management; in addition to an evaluation of the emissions that result from the production and transport of all
goods consumed within the region, as informed by life cycle assessment data.
For communities with low levels of industry, total consumption-based emissions are typically double territorial
GHG emissions, since much of the emissions associated with consumables are being generated outside of the
community’s borders. However, for communities like Iowa City, which are home to large manufacturing
companies or large universities, this may not be the case. Total consumption-based emissions for Iowa City were
1,182 ktCO2e in 2015 (see Figure 14), approximately 200 ktCO2e more than the territorial emissions (see Figure
13).
For the CBEI, the largest impact category is buildings (52%) followed by consumables and waste (23%); this is
similar to the EF results where the largest impact category is buildings (37%) followed by consumables and waste
(28%). Food impacts are the area in which these results vary most significantly. Food is only 10% of the total for
the CBEI, but 25% of the EF; the primary driver for this difference is the land intensity of food production.
20 Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) expresses the impact of each different greenhouse gas in terms of the amount of CO2
(carbon dioxide) that would create the same amount of warming. This enables reporting total greenhouse gas emissions in
one measurement.
85%
13%
2%
Stationary Energy 11.2 tCO2e/ca
Transportation 1.7 tCO2e/ca
Waste 0.3 tCO2e/ca
Total tCO2e:970,000
Total tCO2e/ca:13.2
20
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
Figure 14: Summary of GHG Emissions from Consumption, 2015
CBEI of Food
To inform policy and planning decisions it is important to consider the varying contributions of each of the food
types to the overall food emissions. Figure 15 shows that, similar to the EF, the majority of the CBEI for food is a
result of animal proteins and dairy (74%). The main difference between the EF and the CBEI results are that dairy
yields a greater GHG impact due to the energy intensity of dairy production, and meat yields a greater EF impact
due to its intensity in land use demands.
Figure 15: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory of Food, 2015
CBEI of Buildings
As with the EF, the operating energy of buildings dominates the impact on the CBEI. There is an unresolved issue
with the data for concrete resulting in under reporting the impacts of commercial/institutional embodied energy,
however, it is expected that changes will not impact the overall emissions significantly.
10%
52%
23%
15%
0%
Food 1.5 tCO2e/ca
Buildings 8.4 tCO2e/ca
Consumables & Waste 3.7 tCO2e/ca
Transportation 2.4 tCO2e/ca
Water 0.1 tCO2e/ca
Total tCO2e/ca:16.1
Total tCO2e:1,182,000
9%
41%
6%
7%2%
33%
2%
Fruits and Vegetables 10,612 tCO2e
Fish, Meat, Eggs 47,037 tCO2e
Stimulants 6,505 tCO2e
Grains 7,409 tCO2e
Oils, Nuts, Legumes 2,220 tCO2e
Dairy Products 38,115 tCO2e
Beverages 1,861 tCO2e
Total tC02e:114,000
21
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
Figure 16: GHG Emissions Inventory of Buildings, 2015
CBEI of Consumables
The CBEI for consumables shows that the largest GHG impact is due to wood waste, textiles, and rubber (37%),
as shown in Figure 17.21 However, in contrast to the EF, the consumption-based emissions are higher from
plastics (36%, compared to 17% for the EF); and much less for paper (10%, compared to 40% for the EF). These
results are explained by the larger land footprint associated with production of paper and the higher fuel
intensity associated with plastic. Table 1 in Appendix A provides a detailed breakdown of GHG impacts by type
(that is, by type of plastic, paper, etc.).
Figure 17: GHG Emissions Inventory of Consumables, 2015
21 Total emissions are lower in Figure 17 Figure 11 than they are in Figure 14 because Figure 17 only shows the LCA impacts
of food, and does not include the GHG impacts associated with waste management (operating energy and direct emissions
from waste management), however the ratios remain the same.
5%
30%
0%
65%
Residential Embodied Energy 33,292 tCO2e
Residential Operating Energy 184,123 tCO2e
Commercial and Institutional Embodied Energy 452 tCO2e
Commercial and Institutional Operating Energy 400,504 tCO2e
Total tCO2e:618,000
10%
36%
37%
11%
1%
4%
1%
Paper 17,526 tCO2e
Plastics 60,767 tCO2e
Wood Waste, Textiles, & Rubber 62,552 tCO2e
Metals 18,284 tCO2e
Glass 1,452 tCO2e
Household Hygiene 7,079 tCO2e
Hazerdous Material Container 1,492 tCO2e
Total tCO2e:169,000
22
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
CBEI of Transportation
Similar to the EF, the majority of the consumption-based emissions for transportation are associated with private
vehicle travel (88%), as shown in Figure 18.
Figure 18: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory of Transportation, 2015
THE SUSTAINABILITY GAP
To achieve ‘One Planet Living’ Iowa City’s ecological footprint would need to reduce from 6.7 gha per capita (with
added national and state services – such as the military) to 1.7 gha per capita. This represents a sustainability
gap of 70%. From a climate perspective, in order to achieve the target of maintaining global temperatures below
a 2 degree Celsius in warming, GHGs must be reduced to 2 tCO2e per capita. Given Iowa City’s current CBEI per
capita emissions of 16.1 tCO2e, GHG emissions would need to be reduced by 88%; and based on the GPC per
capita emissions of 13.2 tCO2e, they would need to be reduced by 85%.
Figure 19: Sustainability Gap, 2015 (including national and state services)
3%
23%
65%
4%
0%
5%Embodied Energy of Roads 5,420 tCO2e
Embodied Energy of Vehicles 36,787 tCO2e
Private Vehicles 103,920 tCO2e
Commercial Vehicles 6,805 tCO2e
Public Transit 634 tCO2e
Air Travel 7,262 tCO2e
Total tCO2e:175,94
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
Cropland Pasture Land Fish Area Forest Land
Energy Land Built Land Services
70
One Planet
1.7 gha/ca
gha/ca
23
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
ONE PLANET SCENARIO
A One Planet Scenario for Iowa City is proposed below. This is an example of how Iowa City could reduce its total
ecological footprint from 5.7 to 1.7 gha per capita (excluding national and state services). The associated
reduction in GHG emissions are also presented.
MEASURE EF reduction
(gha/capita)
Reduce red meat 50% substituting for poultry 0.21 gha/ca
Reduce dairy 50% no substitutes 0.15 gha/ca
Reduce food waste post purchase 50%22 (with exception of oils, nuts, legumes only 30%) 0.49 gha/ca
Eliminate fossil based heating/cooling (i.e. no natural gas or coal) 1.24 gha/ca
Improve electrical energy efficiency 80% 0.56 gha/ca
Reduce paper consumption 75% 0.41 gha/ca
Reduce textile consumption 75% 0.27 gha/ca
Reduce plastic consumption 75% 0.15 gha/ca
Reduce consumables (except paper, textiles, and plastics) 60% 0.037 gha/ca
Reduce emissions from privately owned gasoline vehicles 50% 0.36 gha/ca
Reduce emissions from privately owned diesel vehicles 50% 0.02 gha/ca
Reduce emissions from diesel powered commercial vehicles 50% 0.01 gha/ca
Reduce emissions from off road gas-powered vehicles 50% 0.02 gha/ca
Reduce emissions from off road diesel-powered vehicles 50% 0.01 gha/ca
Reduce electrical consumption by street lights 50% 0.001 gha/ca
* An alternative option is to reduce the carbon intensity of electricity. In fact, MidAmerican has made a
commitment to transition to 100% renewable electricity. A 100% renewable electricity supply would achieve a
reduction of 0.7 gha/ca.
22 The focus is on post purchase waste, rather than the waste that occurs in the supply chain.
24
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
The cumulative results of implementing these measures are shown in Figure 20.
Figure 20: Iowa City’s Current Ecological Footprint Compared to a One Planet Scenario
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Iowa EF World Biocapacity Iowa One-planet
gh
a
/
c
a
Built Area
Energy Land
Forest Land
Fishing Area
Pastureland
Cropland
25
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
POLICY RESPONSES AND INTERVENTIONS
While a typical territorial GHG inventory identifies
the emissions that are occurring within a
community’s borders, the ecological footprint and
consumption-based approach broadens the analysis
to consider global ecological and carbon impacts.
Local government staff can use data from the
ecoCity Footprint Tool to identify activities and
consumption habits that are having the greatest
impact on their community’s contribution to global
climate change and ecological overshoot. They can
then implement informed policy interventions to
best reduce these impacts. The ultimate objective is
to achieve One Planet Living; and with respect to
climate change, that means mitigating our
emissions to the extent that we do not increase our
planet’s temperature more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.
CBEI and EF results highlight the need for the
municipality, and other levels of governments, to
support a shift to a more sustainable pattern of
consumption. This could include:
Enacting policies and regulations to (1)
influence consumers and (2) ensure that
more sustainable options are available.
Communicating the impact of purchasing
decisions to residents, and encouraging
their adoption of sustainable consumption
behaviours.
Consideration of the CBEI and EF results can
effectively shift some key areas of policy and
planning decision making. In particular, they
highlight the necessity to:
Target the resource and climate impacts
associated with food production and
disposal.
For Iowa City, 10% of CBEI emissions and
25% of the EF are due to food consumption.
Decrease red meat and dairy consumption
by substituting with legumes and white
meat and reduce food waste.
For Iowa City, red meat and dairy
consumption is responsible for about 40%
of the food component of the EF.
Ensure that local food production has low
resource intensity (in terms of fossil energy
use and land area).
For Iowa City, 98% of the food footprint is
associated with energy and land
requirements, while transportation
represents only 2% of the food footprint.
Shift the focus from waste reduction to
consumption reduction.
For Iowa City, 96% of the footprint
associated with goods consumed is due to
production and transport, rather than use
and disposal.
Reduce the consumption and disposal of
textiles, which have a very high ecological
impact even though their portion of the
waste stream is comparatively smaller.
Reduce vehicle ownership and support this
shift through effective land use planning.
Eliminate emissions from propane and
natural gas usage in residential, commercial
and institutional buildings.
One-planet living refers to a lifestyle that, if
adopted by everyone, could be supported
indefinitely by the regenerative capacity of
Earth’s ecosystems.
- Wackernagel and Rees 1996
26
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
Potential Action Areas for Iowa City
High-level actions for each sphere of municipal planning are presented below. This is not an exhaustive list, it is
recommended that the City review results in detail and use these results to inform upcoming policy, planning
and communication efforts.
Planning
Sphere Key Objectives Instrument
FO
O
D
Reduce food waste
Reduce meat and dairy
consumption
Obtain local data on
food consumption
impacts
Promote sharing economy opportunities (e.g., community
gardens).
Promote diet shifts (e.g., ‘Meatless Mondays’ Oregon;
Celebrate the Harvest campaigns).
Adopt advanced purchasing standards (e.g., Emeryville Good
Food Purchasing Program, EPA West Coast Forum on Materials
and Climate’s Climate Friendly Purchasing Toolkit).
Implement food waste reduction campaigns (e.g., Canada’s
Love Food Hate Waste; US EPA’s Food too Good to Waste;
NRDC Save the Food Campaign).
Undertake a food survey to gain knowledge about local food
consumption and impacts so as to track progress toward goals.
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
S
&
I
N
F
R
A
-
ST
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
Increase efficiency
(envelope 1st approach)
Use building materials
with lower embodied
energy
Implement government purchasing policies to favour recycled
content/reused building materials.
Provide incentives for smaller and more energy efficient
homes, and renewable technology incentives for homes and
business.
Building codes that promote energy and material efficiency
CO
N
S
U
M
A
B
L
E
S
Reduce the volume of
individually owned
goods
Increase reuse
Promote sustainable consumption behaviours (e.g.,
Vancouver’s Green Bloc Neighbourhood Challenge).
Promote sharing economy opportunities (e.g., clothes swaps).
Promote ‘smart’ buying practices – focusing on durability and
buying fewer clothes (e.g., Oregon DEQ’s Make Every Thread
Count).
Support and promote Repair Cafés and Fix-it clinics and the
local repair industry.
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
Reduce vehicle
ownership
Decrease vehicle travel
Improve efficiency of
vehicle fleet
Better understand
inter-urban
transportation demand
Ensure neighborhood plans contribute to compact urban
development, smaller homes and walkable neighborhoods.
Support and promote bike-sharing and car-sharing programs.
Continue to expand Active Transportation Initiatives.
Undertake an ‘Inter-urban’ Transportation Demand Survey to
gain a better understanding of residents out of boundary
transportation habits (e.g., cruise, aviation).
Increase electricification of fleet.
27
Green Bloc is an innovative ecological
footprint challenge that is being
piloted in four Vancouver
neighborhoods, using a streamlined
version of the ecoCity Footprint Tool.
Through Green Bloc, community
members are measuring their
household ecological footprint,
developing neighborhood action
plans, and delivering neighborhood
enhancing, and footprint-reducing,
projects in their communities. The first
pilot neighborhood – Riley Park –
already reduced their footprint by 12%
between 2013 and 2015. (See
http://greenbloc.lighterfootprint.ca/)
City Initiatives
There are also overarching initiatives that the City
can undertake to create a shift to more sustainable
patterns of consumption, such as
Update goal and target setting: consider
adjusting emission reduction goals to reflect this
new information (e.g., Eugene, Oregon has
developed science-based targets that used
consumption-based emissions to set its “carbon
budget”, and a similar approach is being
considered in Europe).
Integrate EF and CBEI results into reporting:
include these results alongside the traditional
territorial GHG emission inventory.
Incorporate sustainable consumption principles
into economic and community development
strategies; for example, by implementing
policies and bylaws that would attract low-
carbon producers, promote work force
development in the repair and reuse industries,
and drive community investment in shared
public goods such as arts, libraries, parks and
recreation.
23 Design for the Environment is a design approach that
focuses on minimizing environmental and health impacts
of products and processes. The US EPA Safer Choice
Engage with other levels of government to
encourage and promote policies and regulations
to shift to more sustainable patterns of
consumption; in particular,
- ‘Design for the Environment’23 practices
that increase the longevity and reduce the
resource intensity of products, and expand
the potential for product reuse and
recycling.
- Product labelling to encourage the purchase
of lower impact goods.
- Expand extended producer responsibility
programs to reduce waste disposal.
Use accessible framing, communications and
metrics to advance sustainable consumption
objectives as a means of engaging residents and
businesses to shift to more sustainable
consumption habits (e.g., ‘One Planet Living’
framing and metrics). Local governments are
uniquely positioned to reach and influence
these key stakeholders with the goal of building
awareness, changing attitudes, and shifting
consumption patterns.
program promotes adoption of these principles (see:
https://www.epa.gov/saferchoice/design-environment-
alternatives-assessments
In Vancouver, a collaborative group of
non-governmental organizations are
partnering with the City to actively
bringing together a community of action
around the Lighter Footprint goal. They
are revealing and linking projects and
partners across Vancouver, as well as
encouraging new efforts in key impact
areas, with the goal of helping
Vancouver become a One-Planet City.
(See: http://lighterfootprint.ca/)
28
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
Additional Resources and Tools
Although the use of ecological footprint and CBEI
results to inform community planning is a new and
emerging area, there are some useful resources to
guide governments and community builders in this
work, for example:
USDN Sustainable Consumption Toolkit:
Launched in 2015, it includes a conceptual
overview and a database of local actions. A
refresh/update is planned for early 2018 (see:
http://sustainableconsumption.usdn.org/)
Life Cycle Analysis studies:
The Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality has produced several studies related to
food and food-specific products such as wine
and tomatoes.
Climate Friendly Purchasing Toolkit:
A resource for institutional purchasing from a
consortium of west coast cities and states
containing modules on a number of product
categories such as IT, infrastructure, and food.
The Stockholm Environment Institute Working
Paper: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Associated with Consumption: A Methodology for
Scenario Analysis
Summarizes a methodology for constructing
long-term scenarios of a transition to low-GHG
consumption; and provides results of applying
this methodology in Seattle, Washington (see:
https://tinyurl.com/yaahjena).
NEXT STEPS
The BCIT project team is currently exploring opportunities to continue to refine the ecoCity Footprint Tool and
to continue to work with the existing pilot communities.
Goals for the next phase of work are to:
Roll-out an accessible version of the eF Tool, either via an online platform or in a downloadable format.
Establish a peer exchange group consisting of the current pilot communities and future users of the
Tool. This network will provide the opportunity to share in the learning of how the ecological footprint
and CBEI results can be used to inform policy and planning at the municipal level.
Continue to evolve the functionality of the eF Tool, including interactive scenario analysis capacity and
adding capacity to enable the evaluation of the footprint impact associated with land use changes.
29
APPENDIX A: LCA DATA FOR CONSUMABLES AND WASTE
The following presents the life cycle assessment data for the consumables by material type. This information is useful in targeting policy, planning and communication
efforts to priority materials.
Table 2: Life Cycle Assessment Data for Consumables by Material Type
Detail by Consumption tCO2e/product tCO2e tCO2/t product tCO2 LCA Factor Embodied Energy FootprintLCA FACTOR LCA FACTOR Embodied Materials Footprint Total LCA Factor Footprint
Paper 16,087 16,087 energy gha materials-crops materials-forests gha (gha/tonne)gha
Printed Paper 0.70 3,899 0.70 3,899 0.18 1,003 1.29 7,186 1.47 8,188.31 gha
News Print 0.85 1,354 0.85 1,354 0.21 336 1.13 1,806 1.34 2,141 gha
Cardboard and Boxboard 0.66 5,274 0.66 5,274 0.17 1,358 1.47 11,746 1.64 13,104 gha
Telephone Directories 0.70 1,470 0.70 1,470 0.21 441 1.13 2,373 1.34 2814gha
Other 0.70 4,091 0.70 4,091 0.21 1,227 1.29 7,539 1.50 8,766 gha
Plastic 60,517 60,517
Film (bags)3.38 25,023 3.38 25,023 0.85 6,287 0.85 6,287 gha
PET 4.93 2,701 4.93 2,701 1.23 674 1.23 674 gha
HDPE 2.92 1,467 2.92 1,467 0.73 367 0.73 367 gha
PVC 1.99 1,361 1.99 1,361 0.5 342 0.5 342 gha
Other 3.38 29,965 3.38 29,965 0.85 7,529 0.85 7,529 gha
Organic Waste
Food waste (not to include in the EF)- - -
Yard and Garden - - -
Wood Waste 0.72 - 0.72 - 0.18 - 0.41 - 0.59 - gha
Textile 15.00 59,584 15.00 59,584 3.76 14,936 3.14 12,473 6.9 27,409 gha
Rubber 6.37 3,492 5.42 2,968 1.6 877 1.83 1,003 3.43 1,879 gha
Other - 0.05 - 0.05 - gha
Metals 21,374 18,168
Ferrous Food/Drink Packaging not Recycled 1.80 741 1.53 630 0.45 185 0.45 185 gha
Ferrous Other 1.80 6,589 1.53 5,601 0.45 1,644 0.45 1,644 gha
Non-Ferrous and Bimetallic 12.82 14,044 10.89 11,937 3.21 3,517 3.21 3,517 gha
Glass 1,246 1,246 -
Food/Drink Packaging 0.65 - 0.65 - 0.16 - 0.16 - gha
Other 0.65 1,246 0.65 1,246 0.16 307 0.16 307 gha
Household Hygiene 8,328 7,079 -
Diapers 3.20 8,328 2.72 7,079 0.8 2,082 0.36 937 1.16 3,019 gha
Sanitary Napkins/Tampons 3.20 - 2.72 - 0.8 - 0.36 - 1.16 - gha
Other 3.20 57,858 2.72 49,179 0.8 14,464 0.36 6,509 1.16 20,973 gha
Hazardous material Container 12.82 1,755 10.89 1,492 3.21 440 3.21 440 gha
Electronic waste 3.38 2,624 3.38 2,626 0.85 660 0.85 660 gha
TOTAL 232,866 167,142 58,675 51,571 110,246 gha
Cross-check 110,246 gha
30
APPENDIX B: DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY
The following provides a detailed summary of the methodology and sources utilized in creating Iowa City’s
ecological footprint and GHG inventories. It also presents challenges and opportunities associated with the data
collection process.
A detailed overview of the methodology by which ecological footprints are generated in the ecoCity Footprint
Tool are provided in Dr. Moore’s thesis: Moore, Jennie Lynn (2013). Getting Serious About Sustainability:
Exploring the Potential for One-Planet Living in Vancouver. A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, School of Community and Regional Planning, University
of British Columbia. Available at: http://pics.uvic.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/moore_jennie-
UBC_0.pdf
Research Principles
The following guidelines were applied when making decisions about data sources:
i) Accuracy: The goal is to achieve a high degree of accuracy, where accuracy is the degree of closeness to
a measured value’s actual value. (This is in contrast to precision, in which the goal is to have measurements
conform with one another.)
ii) Subsidiarity: Locally produced data is preferred, especially when local authorities trust the source’s
validity and use it to inform policies and management practices. Locally derived data reflect the nuance of the
local community being profiled and can resonate more readily with local authorities who use these same data
points to inform their work.
iii) Conservatism: In cases where two data sources equally meet the accuracy and subsidiarity criteria, the
final decision is based on which data point represents a more conservative estimate. The purpose of this
approach is to avoid overstating consumption amounts.
Food
Evaluates the land area, materials, embodied and operational energy including for transportation of food from
field to table. Food available is measured as a proxy for food consumption and import distances are used to
estimate food-kilometers traveled. The energy associated with the production and transportation of imported
food is then estimated.
Embodied Materials and Energy [Food]
Methodology & Sources
National average daily per capita food consumption was divided by (1-% waste) then multiplied by 365
days/year to estimate the total amount of food required per person and multiplied by the population.
National average daily per capita food consumption was obtained from:
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2013). Retail commodity intakes: Mean amounts of
retail commodities per Individual, 2007-08. Retrieved from
https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400530/pdf/ficrcd/FICRCD_Intake_Tables_2007_08
.pdf
31
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
Statista. (n.d.). Per capita consumption of cocoa beans in the United States from 2000 to 2015
(in pounds). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/184209/per-capita-
consumption-of-cocoa-beans-in-the-us-since-2000/
Polis, C. (June 2011). By the numbers: What Americans drink in a year. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/27/americans-soda-beer_n_885340.html
National average food losses were obtained from:
Gunders, D. (August 2012). Wasted: How America is losing up to 40 percent of its food from
farm to fork to landfill. Retrieved from https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-food-
IP.pdf
Food waste percentages were obtained from:
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (April 2016). America’s food waste
problem. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/americas-food-waste-problem
Challenges and Opportunities
Local data for food consumption was not available so national data was used as a proxy.
Operating Energy [Food-Kilometers]
Methodology & Sources
Food miles traveled were derived using Google Earth to find the distance to the location with the largest
production of each individual food type. The average distance traveled for processing domestically
grown foods was found to be 500 miles. This distance was added to each category of food that is primarily
produced within the United States.
Food Import data was obtained from:
United Stated Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). U.S. Food Imports. Retrieved from
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/us-food-imports/us-food-imports/
Challenges and Opportunities
There are multiple components of transportation during the production, processing, and distribution of
food (i.e., transportation of seeds, processing, and retail). On average, the addition of 500 miles to the
total transportation distance, for each food type, is likely to be an underestimate of the total
transportation demand associated with food. Food comes from multiple sources, but due to the
complexity of analyzing the sources of all food types, averages have been adopted. Improvements could
be made by analyzing each food category individually.
Buildings and Stationary Energy
Evaluates the materials, embodied and operational energy; and the built area associated with residential,
industrial and commercial buildings to establish a material-flow analysis, assess the direct and embodied carbon,
and evaluate the ecological footprint of buildings.
Embodied Materials and Energy [Buildings and Stationary Energy]
Methodology & Sources
The number of commercial, institutional and residential buildings as well as an estimated composition
of each building type are required to evaluate the embodied materials and energy associated with the
32
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
building stock. Residential units are divided into categories depending on building types (e.g., single
family detached house, apartment, etc.). Commercial and industrial buildings are differentiated based
on height as this is a significant indicator of their material composition.
The ecoCity Footprint Tool contains calculations and assumptions to derive the embodied materials and
energy associated with the total materials contained within the buildings, which were developed through
Dr. Moore’s original ecological footprint study of the City of Vancouver, and are summarized in Dr.
Moore’s 2013 thesis. Specifically, for a prescribed set of building archetypes, building material
composition is assigned while average lifespan and floor area can be altered to reflect local conditions.
The material composition estimates were derived using the Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings Tool.
The archetypes created for the Vancouver 2013 study have been used in this inventory, as they are
considered to be comparable, with the exception of average lifespan of buildings which was extended to
80 years for residential buildings and 130 years for institutional/commercial buildings.(In Vancouver the
lifespan was 40 years and 75 years respectively.)
Information on the number of each building archetype was obtained from:
Margaret Vogel, Admin Services Coordinator, for the campus planning department of the University
of Iowa.
Iowa City, Iowa housing data. Retrieved from http://www.towncharts.com/Iowa/Housing/Iowa-
City-city-IA-Housing-data.html
Non-University Buildings numbers were obtained from Tim Hennes, Senior Building Inspector for the
City of Iowa City
Challenges and Opportunities
The study team was unable to obtain tonnage of materials used in buildings. Archetype information
already contained within Dr. Moore’s ecoCity Footprint Tool was used as a proxy in the absence of local
data. This proxy data is based on the building archetypes present in Vancouver, BC. It was deemed that
the building types in Iowa City were comparable to those in Vancouver. Namely, most of the residential
stock is wood frame, as are the majority of commercial and institutional buildings which are less than
five stories tall. Buildings greater than five stories tall are considered to be concrete. The creation of local
archetypes could be an area of future study.
Operating Energy [Buildings and Stationary Energy]
Methodology & Sources
To calculate operating energy data is required on the annual consumption of electricity, natural gas, and
other heating fuels; broken down by sector. Energy lost through transmission and fugitive emissions is
also collected or estimated. Carbon footprints are then calculated using Iowa specific emissions factors.
Energy consumption data was accessed from Iowa City’s Global Protocol for Community Scale GHG
Emissions (GPC) report (2015 GHG Emissions Inventory), as reported in Iowa City Community-wide
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Inventory Update, June 2017. Retrieved from https://www8.iowa-
city.org/weblink/0/edoc/1587170/ICGreenhouseGasUpdate-2017.pdf
Additional energy use data was obtained from Metrix –Community Energy Usage - a program that tracks
municipal energy usage by type.
33
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
Built Land Area [Buildings and Stationary Energy]
Methodology & Sources
Built area includes all non-road areas that have been paved for parking or built-up for residential,
industrial, and commercial use. Lane miles and built area of streets, lanes, and sidewalks were obtained
using GIS (Geographic Information System) sources provided by Killy Laughead, Sr. Engineering
Technician, City of Iowa City Engineering Department.
Consumables and Waste
Evaluates the materials, embodied energy and embodied materials, and land area associated with the production
and disposal of products in the municipal waste stream.
Data is collected on:
the type and quantity of solid and liquid waste generated in Iowa by sector (residential, industrial,
commercial and institutional) and by material type;
the method in which these materials are managed (i.e., landfilled, incinerated, recycled or composted);
the energy consumption and emissions associated with the waste management facilities, and the
transportation of the waste; and
the material composition and built area associated with waste management facilities.
The embodied energy of materials involved in the operation and delivery of waste is also included as an indirect
impact of waste production.
The various outputs draw from different components of this data set:
The GPC inventory includes direct GHG emissions associated with handling solid and liquid waste.
The Consumption Based Emission Inventory (CBEI) includes the embodied emissions associated with
the production and transport of the materials that were consumed as represented by the disposed
materials. It also includes the direct emissions associated with disposing the waste stream, but does
not include the impact of the recyclables stream as this would be captured within the LCA of the
consumed goods; which would result in double counting of impacts.
The ecological footprint includes the CBEI emissions plus the impact of the built area associated with
handling the waste stream.
Embodied Materials, Embodied Energy and Operating Energy [Consumables and Waste]
Methodology & Sources
Solid waste data is collected disaggregated by sector, material type, and destination (i.e., landfill,
recycling, or composting). Data on waste sorting, annual landfill volumes, recycled materials, landfill fuel
usage, and landfill flare volumes were obtained from the City of Iowa City landfill division.
The embodied materials and energy of consumables, meaning the material and energy used in the
production and supply chain, is estimated using lifecycle assessment data that is built-into the Tool.
These were developed through Dr. Moore’s original ecological footprint study of the City of Vancouver
and are summarized in Dr. Moore’s 2013 thesis.
Liquid waste, flows, loadings, and distance of piping were obtained from City of Iowa City Wastewater
Division and the built area of the wastewater facility was estimated using Google Earth. Volumes of
34
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
concrete contained within the wastewater facility were calculated by measuring the “as-built” plans of
the entire facility and the addition of all components.
Challenges and Opportunities
The landfill serves a regional community, therefore waste generation rates were pro-rated based on
population served by the landfill. This method does not reflect the unique profile of Iowa City residents.
Solid and Liquid Waste Built Area [Consumables and Waste]
Methodology & Sources
Total area committed to waste management was estimated using Google Maps.
Transportation
Evaluates the embodied materials and embodied energy of physical transportation infrastructure and vehicles,
operating energy (fuel consumed by vehicles), and physical built area occupied by transportation infrastructure.
Embodied Materials and Energy and Built Area [Transportation]
Methodology & Sources
Built area for transportation includes road length and paved right-of-way width. The quantity of roadway
and the road material composition is used along with LCA data to evaluate the embodied energy of
transportation infrastructure. Built are was obtained using G.I.S (Geographic Information System). GIS
data was provided by Killy Laughead, Sr. Engineering Technician, City of Iowa City Engineering
Department.
LCA data that identifies the embodied energy of paving materials was obtained from the Dr. Moore’s
previous ecological footprint assessment for Vancouver (Moore, 20013).
Operating Energy [Transportation]
1. Road Transportation
Methodology & Sources
The average number of miles driven per capita per-year was multiplied by the city population to obtain
the total miles driven by the city’s citizens.
The number of vehicles of each type were divided by the total number of registered vehicles to obtain a
percentage of the fleet by car type. the fleet percentages (by vehicle type) were multiplied by the total
miles traveled to obtain the miles traveled by each vehicle category. The miles traveled by each vehicle
type was divided by the fuel efficiency of the corresponding vehicle type to derive the volume of fuel
used per year.
The breakdown of the number of vehicles of each type for the county of Johnson County was obtained
from: Iowa Department of Transportation. (2015). Calendar Year 2015 vehicle registrations summary.
Retrieved from http://www.iowadot.gov/mvd/stats/regis2015.pdf
Other years’ data for vehicle registration is available at:
Iowa Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Motor vehicle division: Statistics and research studies.
Retrieved from https://iowadot.gov/mvd/factsandstats#vehiclestats
35
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
Average number of miles driven per capita (State of Iowa) was obtained from:
Megna, M. (July 2016). Average miles driven per year by state. Retrieved September 27, 2017, from
http://www.carinsurance.com/Articles/average-miles-driven-per-year-by-state.aspx
Average fuel efficiency per vehicle type was obtained from:
United States Department of Energy. (n.d.). Maps and Data. Retrieved from
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) within city limits was also available from the Iowa Department of
Transportation (IDOT); however, this was not used (as explained in challenges and opportunities):
Iowa Department of Transportation. (2015). Annual Vehicle Miles of Travel. Retrieved from
https://iowadot.gov/maps/msp/vmt/clvmt15.pdf.
Challenges and Opportunities
The study team decided to use state average annual miles driven per capita, rather than the vehicle miles
traveled within city limits, due to the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) method missing all trips outside of the
city. However, the chosen approach will result in an over-estimate of VMTs due to the high percentage
of biking and walking commutes that take place in Iowa City compared to the rest of the State.
Furthermore, due to total miles being disaggregated by percentage of fleet by vehicle type, miles are
assigned assuming that each individual vehicle drives the same number of miles per year regardless of
type.
2. Air Travel
Methodology & Sources
An average value of the annual US per capita miles traveled by an airplane was multiplied by the
population size of Iowa City. The resulting total miles traveled was multiplied by the average amount of
fuel consumed, per mile of travel, by airplane.
36
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
Water
Evaluates the materials, embodied energy, operating energy, and built area impacts of the water purification
and distribution system relied on by the municipality.
Embodied Materials and Energy [Water]
Methodology & Sources
Information on the size of the dams were obtained from the Iowa 2010 River Dam inventory:
United States, Iowa Department of Natural Resources. (n.d.). The 2010 River Dam Inventory.
Retrieved from http://www.iowadnr.gov/portals/idnr/uploads/riverprograms/dam_chap2.pdf
Iowa City has two water treatment plants; one is for the University and one for the City. Information on
both was obtained by contacting the corresponding staff. At the City, this data was held by Iowa City
Water Treatment Division. Staff provided total volume treated, distance of piping, and operating energy.
Built areas data was not available and was therefore estimated using Google earth.
The ecoCity Footprint Tool has built-in assumptions established from previous research (Moore, 2013)
that enables the calculation of the embodied energy of materials utilized in the water system
infrastructure.
Operating Energy [Water]
Methodology & Sources
Operating energy for the water treatment and pumping system was obtained from the 2015 GHG
emission inventory.
Built Area [Water]
Methodology & Sources
Area estimates for the watershed and water supply related infrastructure, including roads (length and
width), buildings, and dams; and protected area and reservoir area were obtained from GIS sources
provided by Killy Laughead, Sr. Engineering Technician, City of Iowa City Engineering Department and
estimated using Google Maps.
IPPU and AFOLU
Industrial Products and pollutants (IPPU) and Agricultural, Forest, and other Commercial land uses (AFOLU) are
important dimensions of a GPC compliant BASIC+ inventory. The ecological footprint and CBEI output however
does not include these sources, as energy use and emissions from these sectors are already captured in the
evaluation of consumables and waste.
i WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature). (2014). Living Planet Report. Gland Switzerland: World Wide Fund for Nature.
Retrieved from: http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/ (accessed on 12
November, 2015).
ii Rockström, J., et.al. (2009). Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society,
14(2): 32. Retrieved from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/ (accessed on 5 October 2015).
37
ecoCity Footprint Tool Pilot: Iowa City Summary Report
iii Wackernagel, M. and W. Rees. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island
BC: New Society Publishers. Retrieved from: http://cdn1.footprintnetwork.org/Living_Planet_Report_2014_summary.pdf
(accessed on 26 October 2015).
iv WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature). (2014). Living Planet Report. Gland Switzerland: World Wide Fund for Nature.
Retrieved from: http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/ (accessed on 12
November, 2015).